Re: [OPE-L] Albritton

["michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@xxxxxx>]

At 05:47 25/03/2006, Jerry cited Rob Althusser's critique of Chris
Arthur:
> In order to have a
> coherent theory of capital's inner logic, we must assume that
> labour power has been securely commodified. The reason Arthur
> has a problem with this is that he wrongly thinks that such an
> assumption must deny all subjectivity to workers, and because
> he thinks that the class struggle that is so present in
> history must for some reason be diminished if it is not also
> given a central position in systematic dialectics. This latter
> concern, I believe, stems from inadequate attention to
> articulating the relations between systematic and historical
> dialectics as distinct levels of analysis....

and he asked:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Do others on the list recognize this as a critique that could be
> extended
> to others?  How can/should it be answered?

        

Yes, this
is familiar. Rob and I went out it in the History of Economic Ideas
following his review of my book there in 2003; the subsequent exchange
was in 2004.

        

You answer
it by recognising explicitly that Rob's starting point is not CAPITAL at
all but the Uno-Sekine amalgam of neo-classical economics and
eclecticism, 'the pure theory'. In my response to his review, I cited
Sekine's description of "this liberal utopia, in which the existing
resources are optimally allocated for the production of all
use-values" where workers "enjoy a historically feasible
standard of living in a state close to full employment", and I noted
that nothing in the 'pure theory' (purified of what, you may ask) would
make a neoclassical economist uneasy--- as long as the term ?positive
non-wage income? were to be substituted for ?exploitation'. I concluded
(HEI, XII, 2, 2004):

> There is no dispute between
> Albritton and me as to what needs to be explained. Rather, we differ on
> whether Marx?s attempt to explain historical movement logically and
> theoretically should be scuttled in favour of the Uno-Sekine-Albritton
> combination of a general equilibrium model and eclecticism under the
> rubric of stages theory. Whereas I retain Marx?s focus on revealing ?the
> economic law of motion of modern society? and his dialectical
> understanding of ?every historically developed form as being in a fluid
> state? (Marx, 1977: 92, 103), Sekine?s ?dialectic of capital? stresses
> that ?capitalism possesses a consistent system of logic? and that it only
> ?ceases to exist when external conditions become sufficiently
> unfavourable to the operation of its logic, as they did after the War of
> 1914? (Sekine, 1984: 96). Here, as elsewhere, Albritton?s position is
> quite clear: he accepts Sekine?s ?dialectic of capital? as superior to
> Marx?s Capital and, indeed, perfect; accordingly, he proposes that
> ?Marxian Political Economy can revive itself by creatively developing
> levels of analysis and by integrating aspects of poststructuralist
> theories of subjectivity.? 
>             The
> enormous gap between the two perspectives on the link between theory and
> history in Marx becomes manifestly clear in Albritton?s response to my
> proposal that latent within Marx?s political economy of the working
> class, the alternative logic within capitalism, one can see the elements
> of the society of free and associated producers, communist society.
> Characteristically, rather than examining my evidence and reasoning,
> Albritton declares this to be ?theory as wish-fulfillment and not a
> theory as rigorous analysis of capitalism? and proceeds to erupt in
> Althusserian outrage over ?humanism? and ?essentialism?. There?s no
> surprise here--- the Uno-Sekine conception of pure capitalism at its very
> core rejects any suggestion that capitalism contains the seeds of its own
> destruction; its purpose is to present capitalism ?as if it were a
> self-perpetuating entity? (Uno, 1980: 125).
>             In the
> Uno-Sekine view, pure capitalism is a solid crystal, an organism
> that is not constantly engaged in a process of change (Marx, 1977:
> 93).

        

cheers,

        

michael

Michael A. Lebowitz

Professor Emeritus

Economics Department

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at

Residencias Anauco Suites

Departamento 601

Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1

Caracas, Venezuela

(58-212) 573-4111

fax: (58-212) 573-7724